Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motor Industries Company Limited come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 1961, Section 195, Section 37(1), Section 132, Section 143(2).

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motor Industries Company Limited

Q: How many judgments cite Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motor Industries Company Limited?

64 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motor Industries Company Limited (223 ITR 112), spanning 2006 to 2026.

223 ITR 112High Court1997#1782 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motor Industries Company Limited authority for?

The issuance of bonus shares by capitalizing profits does not result in an increase in the company's capital employed or an expansion of its profit-making apparatus.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motor Industries Company Limited · CIT v. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. · bonus shares · capitalization of profits · capital employed · profit making apparatus

Also reported as

55 Taxmann.com 377

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 1961 Section 195 Section 37(1)Section 132 Section 143(2)Section 144 Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 5(2)(b)section 153cof section 10(2)(xv)section 43b(f)section 145(1)section 5(2)section 46 section 9(1)(i)section 35d interest free advances maximum marginal rate section 40a(2)(b)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-tax v. Motor Industries Company Limited

M/S Wevin Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 367/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 201Section 250Section 254

…elied on the following judgements: a) Pruthvi Brokers (23 taxmann.com 23) by Hon’ble Bombay High Court b) Kanpur Coal Syndicate (53 ITR 225) by Hon’ble Supreme Court c) National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) by Hon’ble Supreme Court d) Motor Industries Company (229 ITR 137) by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. 3.1 Further, he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India (187 ITR 688) and also judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (284 ITR 323) (SC). The ld. A.R. also brought on record details of availability of these facts on record be…

Smt. Gunjahalli Renuka, Bellary vs. The ACIT, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1104/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarismt. Gunjahalli Renuka Vs Acit, Central Circle - 1(3) "Hrishikesh", Goldsmith Street Bengaluru Besides Indian Bank Bellary 593101 Pan – Abypr5731L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Ii, Bangalore Dated 18.10.2022 For Ay 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Once Again Upholding The Assessment Of Rs.29,48,650/- As The Total Income Of The Appellant In The Set-Aside Proceedings, Without Appreciating The Real Purport Of The Order Of The Hon'Ble Itat Restoring The Matter Back To The File Of The Learned Cit[A] In The First Round Of Proceedings Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 234Section 90

…assessment proceedings. In coming to this view, support is drawn from the ratio laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NTPC Ltd., (229 ITR 383); of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd., (229 ITR 137) and of the co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of CPG Consultants India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT (ITA No.1596/Bang/2016 dt. 31/5/2017). In this factual and legal matrix of the case, as discussed above, I set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) on this issue and after admitting the grounds raised by the assessee on its claim for being g…

M/S Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1982/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R

Section 143(3)

…ITA Nos.1980 to 1982/Bang/2018 M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1980 to 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/s. Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Symphony Teleca Addl. CIT Corporation India Private Ltd.) Range-12 No.3 & 3A, EOIZ Industrial Area (currently with ACIT Survey No.85 & 86, Sadarmangala Vs. Circle-3(1)(2)) Village Bangalore Krishnarajapuram Hobli B…

M/S Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1981/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R

Section 143(3)

M/S Harman Connected Services Corporation India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-12, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1980/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R

Section 143(3)

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 526/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 & 2020-2021 M/s. GMR Energy Limited No.25/1, Skip House, Museum Road ADIT, CPC Vs. Bangalore 560 025. Bangalore PAN NO : AAACT8420A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT…

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 513/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Insecticides (India) Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1296/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Parekh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 8O

…stake. They have also cited following judgements in their support:- 1. NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC); 2. CIT vs. Prabhu Steel Industry Pvt. Ltd. 171 ITR 530(Bom.); 3. Steel Ingots Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 86 Taxman 440 (MP); 4. CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. 229 ITR 137 (Kar.). In the light of above said submissions and the decisions of various courts it is apparent that the Assessing Officer was not justified in taxing a capital receipt as income. Therefore, I direct that the excise duty refund be treated as capital receipts and the modified claim of the appellant to the extent of its modified deduction u/s 80I…

Hewlett-Packard Globalsoft Private Limtied, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 835/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 810/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s. EIT Services India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Formerly known as Commissioner of Hewlett Packard Global Income Tax, Soft Pvt. Ltd., Circle 3 (1)(2), No. 39, 40, Bangalore. Vs. Electronic City, Phase – I, Bangalore – 560 100. PAN: AAACD4078L APPELLANT RESPONDENT & IT(TP)A No. 835/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee by CA : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue by CIT DR D…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Hewlett Packard Globalsoft Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 810/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Sharp Designers and Engineers India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 9, Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 3083/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.3083/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sharp Designers & Engineers India P.Ltd., Office No.14, A Wing, 1St Floor, Mahalaxmi Heights, S.No. 32/7, 32/8, 33/4, Pune Mumbai Road, Near „Key Hotel‟ , Pimpri, Pune- 411 018. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaack7637E बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Acit, Circle 9, Akurdi, Pune Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 80I

…Thermal Power Co. Ltd V/s. CIT 220 ITR 383 (SC) c) CIT V/s. Prabhu Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd 171 ITR 530 (Bombay) d) Steel Ingots V/s. CIT, 86 Taxman 440 (MP) e) CIT V/s. Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. 233 ITR 429 (MP) f) CIT V/s.Motor Industries Company Ltd. 229 ITR 137 (Karn.) 6. I have duly considered the above submissions of the appellant. The CBDT Circular relied upon by the appellant, is dated 11/04/1955, hence it is a very old Circular, and various cases have been decided since then, regarding the admissibility of claims which are otherwise not made in the ROI. One such case is that of Hon'ble Supreme Cou…

M/S Continental Automotive Components India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 129/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2014-15 M/S. Continental Automotive Vs. Dcit, Components India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Industrial Bengaluru. Area, Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru–560 099. Pan : Aakcs 9578 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year :2014-15 M/s. Continental Automotive Vs. DCIT, Components India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Industrial Bengaluru. Area, Hosur Road, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru–560 099. PAN : AAKCS 9578 C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Senior Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 21.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.…

M/S Continental Automotive Components India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 713/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 713/Bang/2017 Assessment year : 2012-13 M/s. Continental Automotive Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Components (India) Pvt. Ltd., of Income Tax, Plot No.53B, Bommasandra Circle 2(1)(1), Industrial Area, Hosur Road, Bengaluru. Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore – 560 099. PAN: AAKCS 9578C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 29.09.2021 Date…

Eit Services India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Hewlett Packard Global Soft Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1455/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: PendingITAT Bangalore08 Nov 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (DR)

Section 10ASection 80H

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A. No. 1455/Bang/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/s. EIT Services India Pvt. Ltd., (formerly known as Hewlett- The Deputy Packard Globalsoft Pvt. Ltd.), Commissioner of Plot No. 39/40, Income Tax, Electronic City, Circle 2 (1)(1), vs. Phase II, Hosur Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 100. PAN: AAACD4078L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Revenue by : Shri A. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 04.10.2021 Da…

El El Hotels & Investments Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 918/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2021AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…India vs. CIT (2012) 340 ITR 407 (Del); ix) CIT, Bombay vs. Airlines Hotel (P) Ltd.; x) CIT vs. UTI Bank Ltd. (2013) 32 taxmann.com 282 (Gujarat); xi) CIT vs. M/s Shriram Builcons Ltd. ITA No.39,53,60,65 of 2006. xii) CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (1997) 223 ITR 112 (Karnataka); xiii) CIT vs. Sales Magnesite (P) Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 1 (Bombay); xiv) CIT vs. Auto Distributors Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 222 (Calcutta); xv) CIT vs. Peico Electronics & Electricals (1992) 107 CTR Cal 240; xvi) Cannanore Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 528 (Ker.); xvii) Ebrahim Aboobaker vs. CIT (1971) 81 ITR 664 (Bomb…

M/S. Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4695/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Vs Havells India Ltd. Acit 1, Raj Narian Marg, Ltu Civil Lines New Delhi New Delhi Aaach0351E (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 251Section 40Section 80I

…iii) Ashok Textiles Ltd. vs. CIT 178 ITR 94 (Ker.). iv) CIT vs. South India Viscose Ltd. 120 ITR 451 (Mad.). v) CIT vs. Elgi Rubber Products Ltd. 219 ITR 109 (Mad.). vi) CIT vs. Rohit Mills Ltd. 219 ITR 228 (Guj.). vii) CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. 173 ITR 374 (Kar.) viii) Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. vs. CIT 175 ITR 220 (Kar.) ix) Beco Engineering Company Limited vs. CIT 236 ITR 344 (P&H). x) Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. ACIT 89 ITD 235 (Del. Spl. Bench). xi) Munjal Showa Ltd. vs. DCIT 147 Taxman 69 (Delhi Bench) (Mag.) 25 The Ld. AR submitted by applying the well settled judicial position to the facts…

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Landis+Gyr Limited, South 24 Parganas

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2298/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2298/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2004-05)

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Akash Patel, CA

Section 143(3)

…voluntarily and without any necessity and if it is incurred for promoting the business andto earn profits, the assessee can claim deduction for the same. Even the Karnataka HC in the case Commissioner of Income-tax vs Motor Industries Company Limited (1907) (223 ITR 112) was of the view that the commercial expediency of a businessman's decision to incur, an expenditure cannot betested on the touchstone of strict legal liability to incur such an expenditure. Such decisions in the very nature of things have to be taken from a business point of view and have to be respected bythe authorities no matter that it may a…

M/S Eka Software Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 40/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2014-15 Vs. Income-Tax Officer, M/S. Eka Software Solutions Private Limited, Ward – 2(1)(4), Building 2A, East Tower, Bengaluru. Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road, Devarabeesanahalli, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru– 560 037. Pan : Aabce 3660 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ajay Rotti, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)

…dify a claim at any stage of proceedings so that the assessing authority can correctly assess the tax liability in accordance with law. In this regard reliance was also placed on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) CIT Vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd., (229 ITR 137) (Kar) (ii) CPG Consultant India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.1596/Bang/2016 da. 31/5/2017); (iii) Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., (2011) 349 ITR 336 (Bom) 3.3 The learned DR for Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 3.4.1 We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record; including the judicial pronoun…

Smt.Renuka G, Bellary vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal forAssessment Year 2013-14 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 552/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2013-14 Vs. Assistant Commissioner Smt. Renuka G , #36, “Hrishikesh”, Of Income-Tax, Gold Smith Street, Besides Central Circle – 1(3), Indian Bank, Bangalore. Bellary – 583 101. Pan : Abypr 5731 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Karuppusamy S.R, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Karuppusamy S.R, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 234Section 234ASection 90

…dify a claim at any stage of proceedings so that the assessing authority can correctly assess the tax liability in accordance with law. In this regard reliance was also placed on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) CIT Vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd., (229 ITR 137) (Kar) (ii) CPG Consultant India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.1596/Bang/2016 da. 31/5/2017); (iii) Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., (2011) 349 ITR 336 (Bom) 6.2 The learned DR for Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 6.3.1 I have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including t…

Glaxosmithkline Asia (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1323/CHANDI/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Sept 2018AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain (C.A), Sh. Abhishek Mukherjee (C.A)For Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj

Section 143(3)

…t is laid down that every enduring and recurring benefit cannot be characterized as capital expenditure unless such benefit in the capital field. The Hon'ble Karnataka High court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, vs. Motor Industries Company Limited.:223 ITR 112 while holding compensation paid by the assessee for premature termination of the agreement of sole distributorship 'is an allowable deduction distinguished the decision in the case of J. K. Cotton Manufacturers Ltd. v. CIT(supra) as under: "Further because the advantage gained by the assessee was chiefly to facilitate the assessee's business ope…